In my experience most English speaking Orthodox here tend to use the KJV in one form or another, all the while realising it's not that good. Personally, I prefer my entirely Orthodox Romanian Bible, even if it does take me twice as long to read it. Until there's actually a real Orthodox translation of the Bible into English, this will probably continue to be the case. I do know, though, that some people seem to prefer the Douay-Rheims to the KJV.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Here is, just as an example, couple of verses from the Holy Gospel according to Matthew VII 1-3.

Cease judging, that ye be not judged; for with the judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye measure, it shall be measured in turn to you. And why lookest thou on the splinter that is in thy brother's eye; but perceivest not the beam in thy own eye.

I have many of the above mentioned translations. If you go with the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims, you will get basically a 18th century Latin Catholic revision of the King James Bible. The entire translation is made to reflect Latin Church theological/biblical understandings.

There is, what I consider, a modern day equivallent to this, which is the translation you first inquired about, i.e. The Orthodox New Testament. This is the first complete translation of the New Testament by Orthodox Christians that I know of in the English language. They used the old English of the King James Version as their base text but completely revised it in accord with Orthodox theological and biblical understanding. There are words and concepts in there that are entirely lost in all other Western, English translations. Therefore, based on this, I highly recommend it. Its the best I've seen yet (even though I'm not a big fan of old English).

If you go with the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims, you will get basically a 18th century Latin Catholic revision of the King James Bible. The entire translation is made to reflect Latin Church theological/biblical understandings.

That sounds good. I just placed an order on both Challoner and Orthodox New Testament. (The idea is to compare with for example the 1970 New American Bible New Testament, which I already have, when I stumble across archaic words in the Orthodox New Testament.)

Alas, the closest you're probably going to come is the complete Orthodox Study Bible, when it's ever released. The Orthodox New Testament is actually in quite modern English; it is only very slightly archaic, mainly in the area of pronouns and verbs. In syntax, diction, and general feel, it's a lot closer to modern than to Elizabethan English.

This is a good example of true early modern English -- as compared with present-day English probably the most noticeable characteristic is its exceedingly complex syntax reminiscent of dense German writing, as well as the persistence of several highly Germanic constructions that are left over from Middle English, but have since disappeared.

Alas, the closest you're probably going to come is the complete Orthodox Study Bible, when it's ever released. The Orthodox New Testament is actually in quite modern English; it is only very slightly archaic, mainly in the area of pronouns and verbs. In syntax, diction, and general feel, it's a lot closer to modern than to Elizabethan English.

reply: I agree. Its not that bad once you get used to it. I'd take it over the OSB any day (i.e. NKJV). I wonder if the translators are considering doing an "Orthodox Old Testament" to go along with their New?

Quote

This is a good example of true early modern English -- as compared with present-day English probably the most noticeable characteristic is its exceedingly complex syntax reminiscent of dense German writing, as well as the persistence of several highly Germanic constructions that are left over from Middle English, but have since disappeared.

reply: I'm sorry, you lost me. Are you referring to modern English or something else? Please elaborate.

I'm sorry, you lost me. Are you referring to modern English or something else? Please elaborate.

A lot of people berate more traditional translations for their supposed archaicism and difficulty of understanding; I wasn't sure if you were one of them. If you were, I was pointing out that these so-called "archaic" translations, though they may use outdated pronouns and verb forms, are much closer to modern English than early modern English, and aren't really archaic at all. IOW, n/m.

The Orthodox New Testament is actually in quite modern English; it is only very slightly archaic, mainly in the area of pronouns and verbs. In syntax, diction, and general feel, it's a lot closer to modern than to Elizabethan English.

reply: I agree. Its not that bad once you get used to it.

So, is the language of the Orthodox New Testament purhaps close to the 1941 Confraternity version? It seems that there would not be many hard-for-me-to-understand archaic words in the Orthodox New Testament, so right now I'm not feeling like buying the Confraternity version. (If someone has an superfluous Confraternity New Testament to sell to me, send a PM, there is no hurry, probably I'm not buying it for years.)

I dunno if they will release it as a single volume apart from the NT or only with both the OT & NT bound together, but anyways - here is the site: http://www.lxx.org/

In Christ,Aaron

Actually I was referring to the "Orthodox New Testament" not the "Orthodox Study Bible - New Testament and Psalms." The former is actually an Orthodox translation of the New Testament, the latter is a Protestant translation (NKJV) of the NT and Psalms with Orthodox notes. The site you gave is for the new English Septuagint translated by the OSB writers which will use NKJV language (which looks promising).

new English Septuagint translated by the OSB writers which will use NKJV language (which looks promising).

That will mean that it will be formal equivalent!I prefer dynamic equivalent New Testaments, such as:

'98 La Bible de J+Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬rusalem. Nouv. +Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬d. rev. et corr (A corresponding English translation is highly likely to come, but it'll take a while, probably the translation work hasn't even started yet, (if it even has been planned yet!). But I'll wait.)